Center for Environmental Healthhttp://www.ceh.org
CEH protects people from toxic chemicals by working with communities, consumers, workers, government, and the private sector to demand and support business practices that are safe for public health and the environment.Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:25:08 +0000en-UShourly1A Tax Day Quiz – Your Tax Dollars at Work?http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-tax-day-quiz-your-tax-dollars-at-work/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-tax-day-quiz-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#commentsWed, 15 Apr 2015 12:02:28 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16902With tax day upon us once again, it’s a good time to look at how our tax dollars are spent. As you can see by this chart, once again the military is taking the most significant chunk of your tax dollars, with about 45% of all discretionary dollars headed to the U.S. war machine (see...

]]>With tax day upon us once again, it’s a good time to look at how our tax dollars are spent. As you can see by this chart, once again the military is taking the most significant chunk of your tax dollars, with about 45% of all discretionary dollars headed to the U.S. war machine (see a list of Tax Day events calling for renewed spending priorities).

OK, that was a trick question – the answer is (4), all of the above! Yes, it depends on who’s counting – but even the lowest figure, from the New York Times, represents the highest base budget for the Pentagon in history. As analyst Fred Kaplan points out, Obama is calling for a whopping 7.7% increase in military spending, mostly for costly weapons systems, including several that have been called unnecessary and/or faulty.

But surely that peacenik Obama must be calling for cuts to nuclear weapons? To find out, let’s go to question two.

President Obama and his military advisors have stated that the United States has more nuclear weapons than it needs for its security. Thus, Obama’s budget request for nuclear weapons spending:

That’s right, the answer is (3)! In fact, Obama is calling for significant increases in spending on nuclear weapons systems. According to the Arms Control Association, “Obama’s legacy on nuclear weapons will now be as the president who set in motion plans to remake a nuclear arsenal …for decades to come.”

So sure, nukes are still going gangbusters, but what about other weapons? Here’s one: Obama’s budget calls for another $10.6 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, a program already known as the most expensive weapons system in history. The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer called the $400 billion program “acquisition malpractice,” and Rand Corporation analysts referred to the F-35 as the plane that “can’t turn, can’t climb, (and) can’t run.” Which brings us to question three:

The light bulbs were the wrong shape, making it illegal to fly the planes at night.

The “stealth coating” on the planes was uneven, making them not so stealthy.

The tires wore out 4x faster than expected, making landings kind of scary.

All of the above.

If you guessed (4), all of the above, you’re catching on!

Obama’s budget also includes $3.4 billion for more P-8 Poseidon aircraft – surely that must be a better plane? Well, a few years back the Pentagon did notice that the plane was made with counterfeit made-in-China parts that could have led to catastrophic problems. But that was a long time ago, bringing us to question four:

Of course, the companies who get your hard-earned tax money for these kinds of expensive weapons systems are surely valuable corporate citizens who provide essential jobs and economic stability to our communities, so it’s not like our tax dollars are going to coal companies or polluters like that, right? For question five, we take a look at three top military contractors, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman:

Lockheed Martin’s operations in Redlands, California resulted in contamination of groundwater and soil, after the company burned toxic chemical waste in open, unlined dirt pits for years. Lockheed decided they wanted to use your tax dollars to pay for the clean-up, so they factored the costs for their past pollution into new weapons contracts, to the tune of $208 million, more than 70% of the clean-up costs. Not satisfied with that figure, the company sued the government and won an additional $17.2 million from your taxes.

Boeing was fined for 79 pollution violations around its Southern California facility, after years of discharging more than 118 million gallons of water laced with chromium, lead, mercury and other toxic chemicals into creeks that flowed to the Los Angeles River. Levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the company’s discharge were as much as 6,900 times higher than safety standards allow. Water safety authorities said the company’s chronic violations created an “exceedingly serious” risk to public health. Following the revelations, Boeing was awarded a no-bid government contract that paid them (out of your tax dollars!) to clean-up their polluted site.

I know it’s hard to believe, but yes, all of the above are true.

So Obama is proposing to spend billions more of our taxes on weapons that are proven failures and/or needless and dangerous, weapons that are made by companies that profit from polluting our communities. But at least Obama is restoring the EPA’s budget, right?

Well, not exactly: Obama is calling for EPA to receive its first boost under his watch, from $8.1 billion to $8.6 billion. But remember, the agency’s 2010 budget was more than $10 billion, so EPA will still be at its lowest funding level since 1989. Obama is calling for an additional $4 billion for EPA to fund state climate change efforts, but unless he can win approval from Congressional Republicans (who are not shy about their hostility to climate change solutions), this fund is pure fantasy.

If Obama’s spending priorities don’t reflect your values, you can take action. Check out the events around the country coordinated this Tax Day, Wednesday, April 15.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-tax-day-quiz-your-tax-dollars-at-work/feed/0Are the New York Yankees selling illegal soap?http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/are-the-new-york-yankees-selling-illegal-soap/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/are-the-new-york-yankees-selling-illegal-soap/#commentsMon, 06 Apr 2015 17:18:02 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16835On Opening Day, the stink of another scandal is wafting over America’s ballparks OAKLAND, CA – Following a Spring Training where A-Rod’s past steroid use made more headlines than the New York Yankees’ dim prospects this coming season, the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has discovered another troubling example of the team’s quickly...

]]>On Opening Day, the stink of another scandal is wafting over America’s ballparks

OAKLAND, CA – Following a Spring Training where A-Rod’s past steroid use made more headlines than the New York Yankees’ dim prospects this coming season, the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has discovered another troubling example of the team’s quickly diminishing fortunes. A CEH investigation has found a “New York Yankees 3-in-1 Wash, Eau De Toilette, Hand Sanitizer” gift set, sold at Burlington Coat Factory in Hayward, CA – a mere stone’s throw from where the Oakland Athletics play – that contains high levels of Cocamide DEA, a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and other reproductive issues.

“Absolutely disgusting,” said Michael Green, Executive Director of CEH, and lifelong fan of the Cleveland baseball club. “It appears the Yankees may be using team-branded toilet water to attack opposing team’s fan bases. And if that’s New York toilet water, you surely wouldn’t want to smell like it.”

The fiasco begs the question: why sell a toxic perfumed body wash in California, a state where it is illegal to sell products containing Cocamide DEA without a clear and reasonable warning of the toxin’s presence?

Speculation runs rampant. It could be out of spite for the San Francisco Giants winning 3 World Series championships in the past 5 years, while the Yankees have appeared in zero. Or, out of disbelief of the Oakland Athletics, who have overcome their bottom-third annual payroll disadvantage to notch a 14-8 record against New York since 2012. Perhaps the coveted #1 top payroll belonging to the Los Angeles Dodgers ($272.8 million) has left Yankees GM Brian Cashman disgruntled, and this is his compensatory vengeance?

The Yankees still tolerate the badge of second-highest opening day payroll this year, at $219.3 million. $21 million of that money will be pocketed by Alex Rodriguez, a.k.a. public enemy #1 of Major League Baseball. Some believe Rodriguez was also a user of the 3-in-1 perfumed body wash in question.

“I had no idea that what I was given to smell good after a hard day at work could affect me this way,” said Rodriguez, due back to start for New York after his one-year suspension, and who may have been high on perfume when flirting with two female fans after being pulled from Game 1 of the 2012 ALCS. “From being victimized in a malicious investigation by MLB regarding the use of steroids, and now wearing and promoting a cancer causing perfumed wash? It’s as if the Yankees organization is still actively trying to cast me out – to avoid paying off the remainder of my modest contract.”

Commissioner Robert Manfred is weighing these possibilities. When asked if Cocamide DEA would be ignored, just as the steroid problem was for years, Manfred was quick to clarify that the league’s profits are no longer the first priority: “It is my job, as commissioner, to ensure a level playing field for our teams. We do not advocate the use of toxic perfume washes for any of our players. If the Yankees are, in fact, knowingly and intentionally purging toxic chemicals in their organization by administering them to players as well as California baseball fans, the consequences will be far-reaching. On the other hand, I have a very important lunch meeting today, so by tomorrow I may not recall this incident at all.”

When asked to elaborate on potential consequences, Manfred suggested allowing teams to employ a defensive infield overshift against any left-handed batter whose scent suggests his illegal use of Cocamide DEA-containing perfume.

The Center for Environmental Health urges all consumers, nationwide, to check the ingredients label should they choose to purchase their team’s perfumed body wash gift sets. If “Cocamide DEA” is listed, and you use this product, you may receive a 162-game suspension from Major League Baseball.

The New York Yankees declined to comment on this story.

-30-

Disclaimer: This article contains satire. The fact: CEH sent Cloudbreak Group, LLC (the distributor of the NY Yankees-branded product) a 60-day notice of violation of CA Proposition 65 on March 18, 2015. The story surrounding this product, including quotations and conspiracy theories, is fictitious and made-up for satirical purposes. MLB Payroll information from Deadspin.com.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/are-the-new-york-yankees-selling-illegal-soap/feed/0From the Desk of…Tom Cotton?http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/from-the-desk-oftom-cotton/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/from-the-desk-oftom-cotton/#commentsWed, 01 Apr 2015 18:08:12 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16814CEH has uncovered an unpublished letter that appears to be from the desk of Senator Tom Cotton, author of the recent Iran letter. A copy follows. TO: American children and families FROM: Senators Tom Cotton, David Vitter and Tom Udall Regarding the “Chemical Safety for the 21st Century” bill It has come to our attention...

]]>CEH has uncovered an unpublished letter that appears to be from the desk of Senator Tom Cotton, author of the recent Iran letter. A copy follows.

TO: American children and families

FROM: Senators Tom Cotton, David Vitter and Tom Udall

Regarding the “Chemical Safety for the 21st Century” bill

It has come to our attention while observing your whining about all of the disease-causing chemicals that are commonly found in your air, water, food and in thousands of every day products that you may not fully understand our political system. Since Tom C. has a lot of experience writing these kinds of explanatory letters, we asked him to help us bring to your attention the features of our quasi-Constitutional system which you should seriously consider if you know what’s good for you.

The thing is, we have lots of rules of order like Roberts Rules, whoever he was, but the main rule you gotta remember is, “money talks.” When chemical companies that have lots of money want to give us some, we listen. Heck, you might even say that we let the American Chemistry Council, the trade group that represents the companies that contaminate our environment and threaten our health, write this “chemical safety” bill — but if you said that, we’d deny it – and if you find an “electronic signature” on the bill that says “ACC,” well, remember that could stand for the Arborists of Clarke County, because tree-huggers love chemical safety too!

Given the industry’s influence, it should come as no surprise to you that our “chemical safety” bill makes you about as safe from chemicals as an LL Bean baseball cap makes Dick Cheney’s hunting partners safe from the former VP’s buckshot. In other words, not hardly safe at all.

Now we know what you’re thinking – at least I’ll still have state laws to protect me and my children from chemicals like formaldehyde in flooring, arsenic in drinking water, and asbestos in all kinds of products. Not so fast! Our bill cuts the states out of the loop, like we cut Obama out of that Iran thing. After our bill takes effect, your state will be lucky to have the authority to stop companies from selling Agent Orange juice (it’s a breakfast drink and a broad spectrum plant defoliant).

Finally, you may worry that, under our bill, your children and grandchildren could still be at risk from toxic chemicals for decades to come. Yes, this is true, but remember, corporations are people too, and they live forever! These polluting corporations will still be calling the shots long after your kids have been poisoned by so many products they won’t know which end of a smokestack is which, so whose interests should we be looking out for? After all, history (and record-breaking profits) show that pollution pays, which means more money for our next election campaigns. And in the end, isn’t money for our campaigns what really matters in a democracy?

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/from-the-desk-oftom-cotton/feed/0A Once-in-a-Century Pesticide (that Probably Causes Cancer)http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-once-in-a-century-pesticide-that-probably-causes-cancer/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-once-in-a-century-pesticide-that-probably-causes-cancer/#commentsMon, 23 Mar 2015 12:49:25 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16776On Friday, a World Health Organization panel of scientists from 11 countries announced their decision to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen. In particular the panel noted the links between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as a study showing the chemical caused DNA and chromosomal damage...

]]>On Friday, a World Health Organization panel of scientists from 11 countries announced their decision to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, as a probable human carcinogen. In particular the panel noted the links between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as a study showing the chemical caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, another showing increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage in people studied after nearby glyphosate spraying, and several recent animal studies showing evidence of carcinogenity.

Glyphosate use in the U.S. has skyrocketed since the mid-1990s introduction of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” GMO crops. Glyphosate kills anything that grows – but by engineering crops like soy, corn and others to withstand high doses of the chemical, Monsanto created crops that farmers could spray directly with Roundup, killing nearby weeds while leaving the crop unscathed. In just a few years, farmers’ use of glyphosate more than doubled, making the chemical the most widely used herbicide in the country.

EPA: If loving glyphosate is wrong, we don’t want to be right

I’ve been writing about the health risks of glyphosate for more than twenty years. In a 1991 brief, I noted that the U.S EPA had stated that the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate was “not fully understood.” By 1995, EPA had classified glyphosate as a non-carcinogen for humans, despite their own reviewer’s statement that, “Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data.” At that time, Monsanto was introducing their GMO crops. Instead of acting in the interest of public health, EPA quietly granted a Monsanto request to triple the allowable levels of glyphosate residues on our food. By the time of my October 2000 update on glyphosate, studies linking the chemical to non-Hodgkin lymphoma were already being reported, and by 2004 even more studies raised this alarming potential health threat from exposures to glyphosate.

You might be wondering how EPA got this so wrong for so long. But EPA was hardly alone. Monsanto’s public relations efforts and advertising over the years created a false reputation for glyphosate as a safe, environmentally benign pesticide. The company’s campaign was sidetracked in 1996 when the New York Attorney General fined Monsanto $50,000 for false claims that Roundup is biodegradable and “less toxic” than table salt, but the slap on the wrist hardly deterred pesticide proponents. A 2008 paper co-written by a USDA researcher (your tax dollars at work!) called glyphosate a “once-in-a-century herbicide,” equating its safety with that of “sodium chloride” (that’s salt to you and me) and aspirin. Even more recently, in 2012 Monsanto was brought to task for false advertising again, this time for claims in a Dutch paper that glyphosate would have no effect on soil or groundwater. The company ran the misleading ads despite reports a year earlier by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that found glyphosate residues were common in streams, rain and air throughout the Mississippi River farm belt. In 2014, USGS reported that glyphosate residues were “widespread in the environment,” finding the chemical in soils and sediments, lakes, ponds, wetlands, surface water and even some groundwater samples.

In keeping with its falsehoods about glyphosate’s environmental persistence, Monsanto continues to insist the chemical poses no health threats. In 2013, the company told the Associated Press that, according to EPA’s rating of glyphosate, the evidence demonstrates that it does not cause cancer. Predictably, Monsanto rejected the latest WHO conclusion that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, stating that Roundup could “continue to be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.”

Sour vindication

You might think that the conclusion about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate by the world’s leading health authority would give a feeling of vindication to someone who’s been reporting on this potential for two decades. But instead I’m left with mixed feelings of hope and despair. I have hope that this may finally make it impossible for our government regulators to ignore the health and environmental costs of the massive use of this toxic chemical. I have hope that California will add glyphosate to its Prop 65 list of carcinogens. But I also despair for the families whose lives may be changed forever by serious and even life-threatening illnesses from exposures they suffered to this unsafe pesticide. I also reflect on all of the time, energy and resources we’ve wasted over more than twenty years for a chemical that organic and sustainable farm systems have demonstrated is completely unnecessary (see here and here and here and many other resources here and here). Vindication is supposed to be sweet, but the WHO conclusion leaves me feeling sadly sour.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/a-once-in-a-century-pesticide-that-probably-causes-cancer/feed/0CEH Legal Action: Be Safe When You Vapehttp://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/ceh-legal-action-safe-vape/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/ceh-legal-action-safe-vape/#commentsFri, 06 Feb 2015 18:35:59 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16455CEH has been receiving questions about our recent legal action against companies that make e-cigarettes and vaping products. We welcome an open exchange on the topic. Below are some responses to the more frequently asked questions. Q: Do you want everyone to stop using e-cigarettes and vaping products? A: CEH does not oppose the use...

]]>CEH has been receiving questions about our recent legal action against companies that make e-cigarettes and vaping products. We welcome an open exchange on the topic. Below are some responses to the more frequently asked questions.

Q: Do you want everyone to stop using e-cigarettes and vaping products?

A: CEH does not oppose the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products. We are taking legal action to enforce California warning rules that require companies to inform consumers (with product labels or warning signs) before they buy products like these, which can expose users to nicotine, a chemical known to cause serious reproductive health problems. The CDC notes that nicotine is

…a reproductive toxicant and has adverse effects on fetal brain development. Pregnant women and women of reproductive age [emphasis added] should be cautioned about the use of nicotine-containing products, such as electronic cigarettes, as alternatives to smoking. The health effects of using electronic cigarettes before or during pregnancy have not been studied.[i]

Further, since e-cigarettes and vaping products are unregulated, consumers have no way to be sure that they are getting what they pay for when they purchase these products. There are also no rules to require packaging that protects small children from being poisoned by the products. We aim to pressure the industry to standardize their products, to protect consumers from false labeling and risky formulations, and to institute safety measures to protect children. We also support and the law in California upholds consumers’ right to know when products expose them to nicotine.

Q: I used these products to stop smoking tobacco and they worked great for me. Shouldn’t everyone have access to these products for smoking cessation?

A: We are glad to hear that these products have been helpful to some people. Other smoking cessation products have gone through government approval processes, to insure that they are safe and effective, are produced consistently to conform to industry standards, and are properly labeled to conform with the law. The e-cigarette and vaping industry have as yet failed to gain such regulatory approval, have been widely criticized for inconsistent and unreliably labeled products,[ii] and their products that we purchased do not comply with current labeling law. The American Lung Association states, “(We are) very concerned about the potential health consequences of electronic cigarettes, as well as the unproven claims that they can be used to help smokers quit.”[iii] In fact, the data on smoking cessation using these products is, at best, mixed: one study found positive results using e-cigarettes, but even that study found that quitting rates were low.[iv] Another recent study concluded that “Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among U.S. adolescents.”[v]

Q: Isn’t vaping different from using e-cigarettes? Vaping doesn’t produce smoke so why would it pose any health risks? Since e-cigarettes and vaping products don’t produce smoke, how can you say they produce second-hand smoke?

A: All of the products we purchased contain nicotine and are intended to deliver nicotine via vapor (smoke).[vi] Nicotine is known to cause serious reproductive health problems. In addition, some studies have suggested that other toxic chemicals may be produced by e-cigarettes, including chemicals known to cause cancer and/or reproductive health hazards.[vii] One recent study suggested potential health risks from nicotine in second-hand smoke produced by e-cigarettes,[viii] and another found higher levels of toxic metals in second-hand smoke from e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes.[ix]

Q: Why are you only targeting smaller companies? Doesn’t your case just protect Big Tobacco, at the expense of people who want freedom to use non-tobacco products?

A: We targeted all products we purchased from companies that fail to comply with California warning rules. Over nearly 20 years, we have successfully pursued numerous efforts to change the way entire industries produce and market their products, to protect consumers’ right to know and reduce health risks. We expect that by pressuring a significant segment of the e-cigarette and vaping market, we can influence the entire industry, big companies and smaller ones, to produce products that are safer for children who may stumble on the products, that are of consistent quality so consumers can know that what they are paying for is what they are getting, and that are properly labeled, in compliance with the law.

Q: You claim formaldehyde is produced by e-cigarettes, but haven’t those claims been debunked?

A: As we noted, a recent study found that high levels of formaldehyde were produced when vaping at higher temperatures. Some critics claim that the study is unrealistic, as most consumers would not use nicotine-containing liquids in their devices at such high levels. As formaldehyde is known to cause cancer, we believe more research should be done on this potential risk. Given that there is little data on this and many other chemical concerns from e-cigarettes, we will continue to monitor the science as further studies are conducted.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/ceh-legal-action-safe-vape/feed/0Black Lives Matter & Environmental Justicehttp://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/black-lives-matter-environmental-justice/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/black-lives-matter-environmental-justice/#commentsMon, 26 Jan 2015 13:32:50 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16416Several CEH staff were interested in taking part in a conversation around the issues raised by the Black lives matter movement and our work in environmental health and justice. Among the leading tenets of environmental justice is the dictum, “we speak for ourselves” (it’s even the title of the 1990 book edited by Dr. Robert...

]]>Several CEH staff were interested in taking part in a conversation around the issues raised by the Black lives matter movement and our work in environmental health and justice. Among the leading tenets of environmental justice is the dictum, “we speak for ourselves” (it’s even the title of the 1990 book edited by Dr. Robert Bullard, one of the fathers of the environmental justice movement). To honor this motto, we interviewed CEH staff for our latest podcast, asking about environmental justice, environmental racism, and the connections between the environment, health, and race in America. Below, some excerpts from the conversation.

Tenya Steele, CEH Eastern States Director’s Executive Assistant

Environmental justice means social justice, at the crux of it, environmental justice is a social issue…. We think of fair treatment of an individual, but for me it includes anywhere I live or work or play or the space I occupy or the air I breathe…. Someone’s space is hard to measure, but if the environment isn’t treated fairly, there’s an injustice…. Dr. Robert Bullard did a study on citing patterns of waste dumps in Houston and found it wasn’t a random, they were repeatedly located in black communities: 4 of 5 incinerators were located in black communities, the 5th was cited in a Hispanic community..

[Environmental justice] is less and less of a black issue, and more of a social issue, and also an economic issue…. It’s closing in on all of us. Health effects are starting sooner, younger people are getting diseases we once heard of only in elders, young kids are now victims of police brutality and crimes…. This is crossing racial boundaries, spinning into white rural communities, like fracking, which is problem for rural, white populations….

I would like to say things are getting better, I’m an optimist, in most people’s hearts, love and acceptance does exist…. But the resurgence of racial tensions causes one to think things are getting worse…. Historically, racism is what this country was founded on, so I guess some things haven’t changed….

Alvaro Casanova, CEH Environmental Justice Inclusion Fellow

When I think of environmental justice, I think of the built environment — buildings, freeways, bus depots…it’s not just the pollution that goes into the environment and effects our bodies, it’s also how we construct and build and place people next to these hazards…. When youth were surveyed in [California’s] Central Valley, they replied that not only were pollution and police part of their environmental justice issues, but also prisons, the building of prisons and the economy that creates there, and the mindset that creates in these communities about their value…

I’ve worked with a lot of young people, and while pollution impacts their development, I’ve also seen the impact of violence and the health effects of trauma, and of not having access to medical services to deal with that trauma…. Mainstream environmental justice deals with toxic health effects. A broader, more nuanced approach would include trauma and its effect on the community and how it defines the environment….

It’s hard to say if [racism] is getting better or worse…. New technologies can give better understanding and more compassion, but also more anonymity to go off on racist rants. People are engaging in the conversation more, and that’s always good.

Michelle Endo, CEH Research Associate

Environmental justice means to create a world in which people from all groups and classes have an opportunity to participate equally in environmental decision-making around their bodies, where they live, work, and in the environment around them….In an environmentally just world, everyone would be able to fulfill their greatest life goals, without having to deal with diseases like asthma, cancer or other health problems…. Many people of color are disadvantaged from the moment they’re born, from the health care they receive, the health care they’re mother received, even just the stress of being a person of color can impact the way children grow up….

It’s important that the movement is in the hands of the people most effected, but it’s hard when those people are sick from unhealthy environments…. [Our housing coop] held “power and privilege” workshops to keep our house a safe space, not only for people of color but also for people who identify as LGBTQ, women, other marginalized groups, people who deal with disabilities…. We want to work to make sure that white allies of the movement defer to black voices-pretty much everywhere, white voices are the ones being heard, and people of colors’ voices are often put aside…. In the same way that environmental justice leaders would want the people who are suffering from these conditions to be heard, since black people are the ones being targeted by police, they should be the ones speaking….

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/black-lives-matter-environmental-justice/feed/0The Good and Bad News About BPAhttp://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/good-bad-news-bpa/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/good-bad-news-bpa/#commentsThu, 15 Jan 2015 19:29:17 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16335The toxic plastics chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) has recently been in the news again. For CEH, BPA exemplifies many of the more problematic aspects of our country’s approach to harmful chemicals in everyday products, and a look at the history and science around BPA is instructive for all who are working to end toxic health...

]]>The toxic plastics chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) has recently been in the news again. For CEH, BPA exemplifies many of the more problematic aspects of our country’s approach to harmful chemicals in everyday products, and a look at the history and science around BPA is instructive for all who are working to end toxic health threats to our children and families.

BPA and chemical policy history

BPA was first created in the late 1800s, and in the 1930s it was rediscovered by scientists who were looking for a drug that would prevent miscarriages and be used to treat women who suffered from menstrual problems. In their tinkering, they found BPA would work because it can mimic the female hormone estrogen. BPA was abandoned as a drug when the more potent (and now notorious) hormone replacement drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) was discovered, but BPA soon became widely used in other ways: in plastics, in the lining of canned foods, and in other everyday products.

Apparently no one thought that it might be a bad idea to expose people to a chemical that was known to alter the bodies’ natural hormones and potentially cause serious reproductive health problems. And no government rules required companies to demonstrate that BPA would be safe in their products before the products were sold to millions of Americans.

But that was the Depression-era 1930’s – surely things are better today, right?

Sadly, the situation today is worse. Companies can continue to use BPA and any number of the more than 80,000 chemicals that are on the market, without demonstrating first that they are safe for our children and families. Our country’s chemical safety rules were inadequate when they were developed in the 1970’s, and today the law still allows companies to sell risky, untested chemicals. Even worse, the latest Congressional proposals to revise these policies would leave most of the worst provisions in place.

BPA Today: Science and Policy at Odds

Recently the FDA acknowledged that BPA can leach into food from packaging, while reiterating its position that the BPA levels in our food are safe. That sounds like good news, until you look at the science. When it comes to chemicals like BPA that can disrupt our natural hormones, many scientists say that low-doses may be even more harmful than higher doses. That’s because large doses of these chemicals can overwhelm the receptors in our bodies where hormones do their work. Smaller doses can “fit” into these receptors and damage our health, with studies linking BPA to cancer, developmental and reproductive health problems, heart disease, obesity and other serious concerns. One recent study even linked BPA to quick spikes in blood pressure.

While FDA maintains its anti-science policy, others are taking a more proactive stance. Several states have banned or restricted uses of BPA, especially in products for young children. And while the FDA was declaring BPA safe, in December a California court ruled that state scientists were correct when they found that BPA is a chemical known to cause serious reproductive health problems.

How to Avoid BPA and Understand “BPA-Free”

If you shop for safer plastics, especially kids’ products, you likely have seen labels that say products are “BPA-Free.” In some cases, these products may be safer – but without regulations that require safety testing and labeling, we can’t know what new, potentially harmful chemicals might be used in place of BPA (one BPA replacement is already suspected of disrupting normal brain development). Without such rules, companies play a toxic shell game: they use risky, untested chemicals until overwhelming evidence of health problems forces regulators to ban the chemical — and then they switch to newer, equally risky untested chemicals.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/good-bad-news-bpa/feed/0My Story with the Chemical Industryhttp://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/story-chemical-industry/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/story-chemical-industry/#commentsMon, 12 Jan 2015 20:31:56 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16301I worked in an environment that was hazardous to my health for many years. At first I didn’t realize it. But as time passed, I became aware that many of the on-site substances were known to cause cancer in some groups of workers as well as laboratory animals. Stuff like benzene, methylene chloride, and PCBs…...

]]>I worked in an environment that was hazardous to my health for many years. At first I didn’t realize it. But as time passed, I became aware that many of the on-site substances were known to cause cancer in some groups of workers as well as laboratory animals. Stuff like benzene, methylene chloride, and PCBs… many substances that are used by the Gas and Oil Industry. There’s not a day that goes by where I am not worried that I may be at an increased risk of developing breast cancer; or that my two daughters, both whom I carried while working around those toxins, are themselves at greater risk, due to what science calls epigenetics.

Chemical exposures to workers and the general public are of grave concern because, for far too long, business has been allowed to put harmful chemicals in everyday products first, and make their products safer only after people get sick. If a company wants to bring a new drug to market, the government requires years of research and safety testing. But a chemical company can put new chemicals on the market tomorrow, without any testing to show that this new synthetic product will be safe for our health or the environment.

Just One Example

The chemical industry makes billions of dollars each year from the sale of chemicals that are not adequately tested for safety, and some legislators side with the industry lobbyists who buy their way into our decision-making process. In contrast, we pay to use the products made with their chemicals, we pay with our health, we pay with lost wages and healthcare costs when we get sick; we pay for the clean up when the chemicals pollute the environment, and our tax dollars pay for studies to assess the damage when evidence mounts about chemical health threats.

This is just one example of campaign spending being a stick jammed into the spoke of sensible progress and allows industry to go on committing their crimes in perpetuity.

For this reason, it is important for citizens across America to fight for real comprehensive chemical policies that truly protect public health, but for starters we need to tell Congress that our health and our livelihood can no longer be bought with a prices. Our voices can and will be heard. We have the power to change this NOW.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/story-chemical-industry/feed/1Money talks. But it’s time to shut it up.http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/money-talks-time-shut/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/money-talks-time-shut/#commentsMon, 12 Jan 2015 20:20:53 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16299In the Supreme Court Case, Citizens United, the Court ruled for the first time that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections. The problem is, they have more money. A lot more money. As the saying goes, “Money talks.” So while many of us exercise our democratic right...

]]>In the Supreme Court Case, Citizens United, the Court ruled for the first time that corporations are guaranteed the same free speech rights as real people to influence elections. The problem is, they have more money. A lot more money.

As the saying goes, “Money talks.” So while many of us exercise our democratic right to vote as a way of expressing themselves, those votes are imperceptible whispers compared to the campaign donations, ad blitzes, lobby efforts, and pay-to-play media integrations that our corporate brethren are employing to tweak our democracy in their favor. Their money has been shouting at full volume ever since Citizen’s United was decided five years ago, and it Will. Not. Shut. Up.

The real problem is that their voice is drowning out our voice. Your voice. My voice. “We, The People’s” voice. So we have a democratic process that has evolved into a funhouse mirror version of itself. As a result, many of our older laws that are no longer relevant have been protected because they favor corporations. Newer laws are often written BY corporations and therefore naturally favor them at our expense. From laws that allow chemical companies to expose us to a toxic soup of disease causing chemicals, to laws that allow Wall Street bankers to profit off of our mounting student loan debt, these examples have saturated our system of government. Our laws are protecting corporate citizens at the expense of actual people.

It’s gone too far for too long and it’s time to send Congress a message.

WE THE PEOPLE Need a Constitutional Amendment

In coordination with People for the American Way, we at the Center for Environmental Health are calling for a constitutional amendment that will put a cap on political spending from industry lobbyist or anyone else! SJ Res 19 is a joint resolution proposing an amendment in the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. It would ultimately regulate the raising and spending political finances, and the capitalizing of our most democratic process – voting.

]]>http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/money-talks-time-shut/feed/0Safe Toys Shouldn’t Be a Holiday Miraclehttp://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/safe-toys-shouldnt-holiday-miracle/
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/safe-toys-shouldnt-holiday-miracle/#commentsMon, 08 Dec 2014 13:45:30 +0000http://www.ceh.org/?p=16087Children love Curious George. Looking at this Curious George doll, you can just imagine a little kid playing with him, hugging him tightly, even kissing his face. So it would be shocking to learn that the face of this Curious George doll, bought and tested by CEH in 2007, was made with extremely high levels...

]]>Children love Curious George. Looking at this Curious George doll, you can just imagine a little kid playing with him, hugging him tightly, even kissing his face.

So it would be shocking to learn that the face of this Curious George doll, bought and tested by CEH in 2007, was made with extremely high levels of lead, a stunningly toxic chemical that can cause lifelong learning and developmental problems.

CEH’s work to expose this and dozens of other toys and kids’ products we found with high levels of lead had a major impact. We pressured Congress to act, and in December 2007 we won a holiday miracle when Congress passed the first-ever federal ban on lead in all children’s products.

But that’s just one chemical

Unfortunately, lead is just one chemical in toys that can threaten children’s health. Recent testing has found arsenic, mercury, and other toxic chemicals can still be found in some toys. That’s why we continue to pressure Congress to adopt comprehensive federal rules on all toxic chemicals, requiring chemical companies to demonstrate that their products are safe before they end up in our kids’ toys – or in hundreds of other products we use every day.

In the absence of federal action, we support state and local laws for safer products. In Albany County New York, I testified last week in support of a local rule that would ban the sale of toys and other children’s products containing the most toxic chemicals. Now the County legislature is poised to vote on the issue.

Your Support Matters!

If you live in Albany County (or know friends who do), the legislature is scheduled to vote today! Call your legislator and urge him or her to support the Toxic-Free Toys Act for safer children’s products. And all of us can contact our U.S. Senators and let them know that we want real reform of national chemical rules, so all of our children and families are protected from disease-causing chemicals.

Update-January 7, 2015: Today the Albany County legislature adopted the Toxic Free Toys Act! Many thanks to everyone who helped make this happen. Click here to see the Just Green Partnership statement.